I believe there is an emergency about to unfold pertaining to this website: http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/which has been presenting online as representing ows without having obtained the consensus approval of the nycga
He is publishing a list of demands. Claims Huff Post is picking it up in the morning, that its about to go viral on faceassSomeone with Hacking Genius, please disable this website until the general assembly can assess what to do with this situation!!

Hi Micheal Thanks for clarifying the situation for me. I can understand why you would be frustrated.
I have a few things to say here. 1. is it possible, or have you even considered the possibility that the minute taker may have mistakenly omitted your report from the minutes? Things do happen, mistakes, I mean.
2.In my view, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to maintain solidarity within the movement. That takes a whole lot of strength and courage. Also, it takes allowing some things to roll of your back like water on a duck's back.
3. If the girl taking minutes did intentionally erase your report, which seems highly unlikely to me, but I will entertain the notion, can you see that she is ONE person? That one person can do things that the group doesnt agree with? That we are still in our infancy and things like this do happen? That you could try to communicate your concerns in a non accusatory way, or compassionate way, even. She may be young and inexperienced, she may have become corrupted by facilitating too many times, who knows??? My main point being dont give up on an entire GA because of one person's questionable behavior. There are avenues available to address it
4. I have to strongly say that your argument that you didnt go to the press, but they came to you, is sort of misleading here. Posting a list of demands on a public website with the OWS name on it is exactly like going to the press with it. All one has to do is a google search to find it. Once finding it, they would assume it was approved by the group consensus because the name is on it. I have to submit to you in all due respect that I feel this is misleading. You ought to post on the website in plain view, 'CONSENSUS APPROVAL PENDING'
5.I understand you have been working on this for a while. I understand that you have a considerable support for this. I also understand that how one enters a group for the first time is very important. If you enter humbly and listen for a few weeks before running your own agenda on the meeting, you would probably have more of a warm reaction. You must be able to put yourself into others shoes in order to understand them. These people, in Liberty Park, some of them, have been there since before day one. They have been working hard, sleeping on cement with jack hammers going all night and cops constantly harassing them. They have done a huge service for all of us. They have formed strong bonds with each other. These bonds take time to form and watching each other get arrested and beat down by cops forms strong bonds.
I ask you really to look at how you entered the group. I was not there so I dont know. I am playing a devils advocate here, lovingly asking you to take a look and think this through a little bit more.

You did not get consensus approval for your website. You did not go through the procedures every other working group went through. You announce online a list of demands without approval of a group who has put everything in their lives on the line to create a global movement in solidarity. A group who has made it abundantly clear that there IS NO LIST OF DEMANDS.

I ask of you Michael. How Dare You?

please consider deeply the points I have made in this message before reacting defensively. I am doing so in the spirit of solidarity. I am doing so in love as your sister even though I dont know you. Because I read your document and it shows a huge amount of thought and commitment. I dont look at that lightly. I see so much in this. Please listen to me

This is correct. We announced our WG on 10-15-11, and now have 250 members. The plan was for us to meet and report back to the GA. We never got that far. I was the Michael who spoke on 10-15 at the GA and none of the founding members of this WG spoke to the press. I cannot control 250 people nor would I ever want to. My outrage is the way the facilitators of the GA ERASED my appearance from the 10-15-11 minutes. Who else have you done this to and why should I ever trust the NYC GA again? Michael P.

--- In the99declaration@yahoogroups.com, Generation Revolt <generationrevolt@...> wrote:
>
> From my understanding, this group declared it was forming on October 15th,
> which is fine, since working groups are horizontal and anyone can form them.
> I heard on October 16th that an article would be published listing demands
> in the New York Times from different people at OWS, who claimed it was never
> approved in General Assembly. The next day, I saw it in the press. So, from
> my understanding, the working group was presented, but the list of demands
> were not voted on.
>

> >
> >
> > Pardon me, I figured out it originated in Liberty Park's GA, but the other
> > details I would still like to be filled in on!
> > thanks so much
> > Lopi
> >
> >

> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:01 AM, lmnop <artist.proof@...> wrote:
> >
> >> I just joined this group. I am from Brooklyn and have been attending the
> >> GA in Liberty park for about 3 weeks, although I dont make it every night.
> >> Would someone please give me and others who may be wondering a background
> >> on this?
> >> Was this sanctioned by a general assembly somewhere? Did this working
> >> group get consensus approval? Where did it originate from? (what state,
> >> city, person etc)
> >>
> >> I have to say, I heard about it from the press, which stated it as a OWS
> >> working group. I assumed it had gone through the proper channels.
> >>
> >> So, do, in the spirit of transparency, fill those of us who may have
> >> assumed this passed a consensus vote, in on the history?
> >>
> >> thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not quite sure I can do that yet, Michael...I will be patient and see
> >>> how it plays out, and only say that you should be careful when using the
> >>> term "OWS" - especially to the press - without consent of the "thousands"
> >>> that General Revolt mentioned below.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In the99declaration@yahoogroups.com, "the99declaration"

> >>> <the99declaration@> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Please lets put this behind us. We did not go to the press, the press
> >>> came to us. The declaration has gotten 30,000 hits in a couple days so
> >>> non-mainstream media are picking it up. Michael P.
> >>> >
> >>> > --- In the99declaration@yahoogroups.com, Generation Revolt
> >>> <generationrevolt@> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Elly,
> >>> > > This is great advice, and I hope it will be followed. There is
> >>> fragility
> >>> > > present and a desire not to be co-opted by anyone. For weeks,
> >>> thousands of
> >>> > > people managed to join together to discuss our issues and agree it
> >>> was too
> >>> > > early to release a set of demands. It's only been a month. I
> >>> understand the
> >>> > > desire to rush this process, but the way this was handled created a
> >>> fracture
> >>> > > in the group. You are now basically saying the GA is undemocratic and
> >>> > > undermining the process, after claiming a system that would select
> >>> > > representatives from the GA would be set in place as part of your
> >>> plans. Not
> >>> > > having your meeting minutes posted shouldn't translate to going to
> >>> the press
> >>> > > to have your opinion voiced (again, you can do what you want, but I
> >>> am
> >>> > > voicing my opinion about the morality of it). You should have
> >>> communicated
> >>> > > with someone. There are thousands of people attempting to organize
> >>> into
> >>> > > systems, and though this is a frustrating process, we are all trying
> >>> to work
> >>> > > through it so we can be truly transparent and democratic. Showing up
> >>> one day
> >>> > > to GA with a plan and then going to the press with it the next night
> >>> seems a
> >>> > > bit rushed (if I'm not mistaken, that is what transpired) If you're
> >>> an
> >>> > > independent group doing that, just say so.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Elly <urbanpubedreform@> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > **
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > the longer this stream goes on, the more clear the situation is
> >>> becoming.
> >>> > > > Michael, it really sounds like you were given short-shrift on the
> >>> GA's
> >>> > > > minutes. For an objective outsider, this resonates with
> >>> power-struggles we
> >>> > > > all have experienced.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > It seems as if you wanted to be on the minutes and she wanted to
> >>> remove
> >>> > > > you. So, there is a disconnect. I truly think that you need to find
> >>> out what
> >>> > > > happened and have a mediation session. I think that we need to
> >>> start
> >>> > > > implementing restorative justice sessions early on, or we will
> >>> fracture and
> >>> > > > fail.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I think it's great that you put your experience out to the group,
> >>> and I'm
> >>> > > > hoping that this gets resolved satisfactorily on both sides.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Please also remember, that as a fragile new group, they do not want
> >>> to be
> >>> > > > co-opted by anyone. Maybe they had a sense you were trying to do
> >>> so?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > In LOVE,
> >>> > > > Urbaned Elly
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>

> >> *"No great art has ever been made without the artist having known
> >> danger."*